AI Visibility Score

Alternatives to Consider

12.7 / 100

Ranked #140 of 558 scored brands · as of 2026-07-28

Questions named in
7
Total mentions
7
Average position
4.3
Sample
7 days

Engine by engine

Different models recommend different brands. Here's how each one sees Alternatives to Consider.

EngineScoreRankQuestionsAvg position
Gemini Flash Lite 15.5 #129 7 4.3

What AI actually said

Unedited excerpts from archived answers.

“…ble templates, analytics, and payment collection. --- Alternatives to Consider Depending on your specific needs, you might want to look at a few competitors: 1. DocuSign: The gold standard for enter...”
gemini position 1 · “is PandaDoc worth it”
“…asic surveys; paid plans for advanced features) | --- Alternatives to Consider Depending on your exact needs, you might also look at these competitors: * If you are looking at Google Analytics alter...”
gemini position 3 · “SurveyMonkey vs Google Analytics”
“…your tier-1 support through natural language AI. --- Alternatives to Consider If neither of these feels quite right: * Zendesk: The ultimate enterprise competitor to Freshdesk—more powerful, but als...”
gemini position 3 · “Freshdesk vs Intercom”
“…eding multivariate testing and dedicated support. --- Alternatives to Consider If Mailchimp doesn't sound quite right, check out these alternatives: 1. Best for Budget & Simplicity: MailerLite * *Wh...”
gemini position 5 · “is Mailchimp worth it”

Named alongside

Brands that show up in the same questions as Alternatives to Consider.

#BrandScoreShared questions
22 Freshdesk 35.6 3
4 Zendesk 60.4 2
2 Notion 64.1 2
17 Asana 39.5 2
14 Intercom 45.0 2
7 monday.com 55.2 2
20 HelpScout 37.8 2
144 Google Analytics 12.1 2

Show this on your site

Free embeddable badge — one line of HTML, updates itself as the score moves.

Alternatives to Consider AI Visibility Score badge

Get the badge

How this score is calculated

Reach (how many questions named the brand) multiplied by prominence (how early it was named), scaled so the most visible brand sits at 100.

Full methodology →